The Zero Waste Union

A plan to make the University Union a Future Zero Waste Facility

Created by: Cassandra Ballert

Lyndsay De Carolis Kathleen Elmquist Carlo Lorenzetti Kaleah Mabin

Kadie McShirley

University of Michigan Environment 391

December 15, 2010

Zero Waste Union

2

Table of Contents Content Page Number Executive Summary 3

Introduction 4

Project Goals and Objectives 4

State of the Union 4

Transition to Single Stream Recycling 5

Summary of Findings 5

Survey Methodology and Results 5

Waste Audit Methodology and Results 8

Interviews with National Franchises 10

Looking to Peer Institutions for Examples 11

Recommendations 12

Short-term Recommendations 12

Long-term Recommendations 15

Barriers 15

Lessons Learned 16

Acknowledgements 16

Conclusion 17

Literature Cited 18

Appendix 19

Zero Waste Union

3

Executive Summary The University Union is not only one of the most iconic buildings at the University of Michigan but it is also one of the focal points of student life. With roughly 10,000 people flowing through the Union on a daily basis, this facility could serve as a role model of sustainability for the rest of campus. This project focused on making the Union a zero waste facility in the future by creating a plan that encompasses both short and long-term goals. In order to assess the current conditions of the Union’s waste stream, our group conducted a recycling survey, completed a waste audit, interviewed a national franchise vendor manager, and gathered relevant background information from other peer institutions. To narrow the scope of our project, we also decided to focus our efforts primarily on the basement floor of the Union, formally referred to as the MUG. Our research culminated in several important conclusions. Survey results clearly depict a general lack of recycling awareness among MUG visitors, especially following the recent introduction of single-stream recycling at the University. Many MUG guests are overwhelmingly unfamiliar with what can be recycled, as well as where recycling receptacles are located. In fact, only 4% of survey respondents were able to correctly identify recyclable items, and less than half knew of MUG recycling locations. Further reducing recycling rates is the fact that the national franchises do not have kitchen recycling, which drives their operations to be entirely wasteful. The waste audit analyzed waste generated in one day for the entire Union. Accordingly, all Union floors, including the MUG, were represented in the audit. Results showed that 23.1% of waste is actually recyclable material, while 30% is comprised of compostables. Therefore, assuming that recycling was improved substantially, about a quarter of the waste could potentially be diverted from landfills. Implementing pre-consumer composting in the MUG franchises will also substantially increase landfill diversion, although it will not take care of the entire 30%, since this also includes post-consumer composting. In the short term, the Union would benefit from retrofitting recycling containers, adding more recycling receptacles while reducing trash containers, and increasing recycling rates through permanent signage. All student organizations located on the third and fourth floors must receive recycling bins, as well as signage and brief educational trainings to easily increase waste diversion. Also, recycling should be introduced to each of the national franchise kitchens, and should be accompanied with the education of staff members. Pre-consumer composting, which involves taking food waste created during food preparation and converting it into fertilizer, must also be established in the national franchises and the Union kitchen. This action alone promises to divert a large amount of food waste from the landfill, but will not take care of all compostable material. For this to be achieved, post-consumer composting must also be introduced, which would require Union visitors to separate appropriate food waste after eating. Producing one bin of composting per week will cost each national franchise less than $850 annually, but will divert more then 3,300 pounds of waste. With the implementation of pre- and post-consumer composting, approximately 30% of the Union’s waste could be redirected and used for another purpose. This study also recommends the creation of a student intern position for the continuation of this project.

Zero Waste Union

4

Long-term steps include instituting post-consumer composting and conducting consistent waste audits. National franchises as well as the Union kitchen must also look to increase the amount of recyclable and/or compostable containers utilized to augment the amount of material that can be diverted from landfills. Finally, we recommend that waste audits occur every three years in order to monitor the Union’s progress. Introduction Project Goals and Objectives The overarching goal of the Zero Waste Union Team is to develop a plan to make the Union a zero waste facility. This project was selected due to the size of the Union and the amount of traffic that it undergoes per day. These factors give the Union a high potential for change, although not without obstacles. We acknowledge that this is a long-term stretch goal that will require a lot of planning and many alterations to the current structure of the Union. We intend for our plan and evaluations to be used as a model for the other University Union facilities (Pierpont Commons and the League). Our team is working in tandem with two sponsors, Susan Pile (pile@umich.edu) and Donna Maples (dmaples@umich.edu). After meeting with our sponsors, we identified the following as our two major project goals: to implement more effective and centrally located recycling receptacles and signage in the Union, and to evaluate and plan for the future introduction of a pre-consumer composting program in the Union. State of the Union Through our meetings and observations, we have discovered that the Union has few recycling receptacles in place compared to the number of trash receptacles. The MUG basement area has a 4:1 ratio of trash cabinets to recycling receptacles. There are two built-in “paper only” recycling cabinets and several freestanding general recycling receptacles near the entrance. Upon visual inspection, it was found that the paper recycling cabinets were heavily contaminated. The can and bottle collection system that is built into a wall using PVC pipes has low levels of contamination. None of the recycling receptacles have been relabeled since the introduction of single stream recycling at the University and the city of Ann Arbor.

The majority of third and fourth floor offices do not contain recycling bins or posters that outline what is recyclable. Recycling bins are available in the lobby or in communal spaces, but do not have a poster to describe what is recyclable under the new single stream policy. Furthermore, even if a student organization has a recycling bin, students are unclear as to where these receptacles should be emptied. The Union currently does not compost pre- or post-consumer food waste. It participated in a pre-consumer food waste program in the past, but discontinued when the program implemented a fee. Currently, it costs $16.30 per compost bin per pick-up. Trash pick-up costs $6.76 per loose

Zero Waste Union

5

cubic yard and $15 per compacted cubic yard. The Union kitchen staff does recycle cardboard, large cans, and plastic containers. National franchises, however, only recycle cardboard. The Michigan Union participates in the Recycling Champions competition against other buildings. In 2008, the Union recycled 29.5% of its waste and in 2009 it recycled only 25.8%. In Winter 2010, the Union recycled 29.1% of its waste. This competition is an excellent way to measure the Union’s recycling progress. Although these statistics are similar to the national average of 33%, we found that the Union could significantly increase recycling rates, as discussed below. Transition to Single Steam Recycling July 2010 marked the beginning of Ann Arbor’s single stream recycling program. The major benefits of this system include expanding acceptable recyclable materials and allowing all recyclables to be placed in a single bin. Following Ann Arbor’s lead, the University of Michigan also has implemented this system. By definition, “single stream” recycling is the separation of:

All recyclables from trash at the source (home or business) into one “single

stream” of commingled recyclables (paper and containers) that are collected in one truck compartment and processed at the MRF (Materials Recovery Facility) for delivery to recycling markets.1

These upgrades are projected to increase the city’s overall waste diversion rate to up to 70%, and will shrink the city’s carbon footprint by 108,000 tons of greenhouse gases (GHG) over the next 5 years.1 The infrastructure upgrades were almost entirely on the processing end, which created a seamless conversion for recyclers. Besides not having to sort recyclables, the program works the same way it always did. The new materials that can be recycled under the program include all plastic bottles, household plastic containers #1, #2, and #4-7 (excluding Styrofoam and #3), and bulky HDPE (high-density polyethylene) such as buckets, crates, toys, trays and furniture.1 Summary of Findings Survey Methodology and Results Methodology Our group surveyed visitors to the MUG, which is the formal name given to the basement eating area in the Union, on a Thursday and Friday from 12 pm to 1 pm. Respondents were chosen randomly, and were asked four questions, always in the same order. In total, 152 people participated.

Zero Waste Union

6

Survey Questions and Results 1. How often do you eat in the MUG (basement eating area in the Union)?

a. Almost never b. 1-3 times per week c. Every day

2. Do you know where to recycle in the MUG?

a. Yes b. No

Zero Waste Union

7

3. How familiar are you with the term “single-stream” recycling? a. Very Familiar b. Familiar c. Unfamiliar

4. I am going to read to you 6 items. Please tell me with a “yes” or a “no” if these items are recyclable under “single-stream” recycling.

a. Styrofoam b. #3 Plastics c. Paper Plates d. Yogurt Containers e. Pizza Boxes f. Plastic Water Bottles

Zero Waste Union

8

The first three items (Styrofoam, #3 plastics, and paper plates) are unable to be recycled under single-stream recycling at U of M. In contrast, the last three items (yogurt containers, pizza boxes, and plastic water bottles) are all recyclable under the current system. Therefore, the green portions of the bars represent the percentage of correct responses, while red indicated incorrect answers. Accordingly, #3 plastics and paper plates proved to be the most difficult items for respondents.

Discussion of Results It is clear that the majority of people are unaware of both the meaning and implication of single-stream recycling. While it is important for MUG visitors to understand what single-stream means, it is more critical that they are able to follow what is and is not recyclable under this system. As shown in the final graph, only 6 out of 152 people surveyed (roughly 4%) answered correctly for all questioned items. No one answered incorrectly for all 6 items. Specific items, such as #3 plastics (32.9% correct) and paper plates (73.7%), were found to be most confusing to those surveyed. These items, along with Styrofoam (66.4%), pose serious risks of recycling contamination, due to the fact that many of the food containers provided by the national franchises utilize these materials. Plastic water bottles were the least confusing item, with 95.4% of respondents answering correctly. Waste Audit Methodology and Results Methodology In order to assess the composition of the waste generated on a normal day in the Union, a waste audit was performed. Collaborating with 7 volunteers, we sorted on a Tuesday morning at 1655 Dean Road on North Campus. Proper safety equipment and training was provided for us. The sorted waste came from the Union as a whole, and was generated the Monday prior to the waste

Zero Waste Union

9

audit. Therefore, this was the trash generated by the entire Union for just one day. Several of the bags, labeled as “unsorted” were from the University’s blood drive, and thus were left alone. Results

Discussion of Results According to our results, less than half of the waste generated in the Union is actually trash, comprising only 43.9% of the total waste weight. The remaining weight was divided similarly, with 29.8% of waste being compostable, and 23.1% recyclable. Medical waste from the Union’s blood drive constituted the final 3.1%. These results show that, on a given day, the Union is able

Zero Waste Union

10

to divert 1,145 pounds of waste from the landfill through effective recycling and the implementation of pre- and post-consumer composting. Weight percentages are more helpful in gathering data, since compost is significantly denser than both trash and recyclables. Therefore, compost only comprised of 15% of the bag composition, but was almost 30% of the waste’s weight. In addition to gathering helpful quantitative data from the waste audit, many important qualitative findings were discovered. For example, it was clear that a large portion of student groups located on the top floor of the Union are not effectively recycling, whether they have bins installed or not. Several of their bags held large amounts of paper mixed in with actual trash. Furthermore, a few of the bags were overwhelmingly filled with recyclable materials, which lead us to wonder whether some of the custodial staff disposes recycling bags for whatever reasons. In addition, much of the food waste that was found is compostable under the existing pre-consumer compost program in five of the dining halls. We found especially high rates of this type of waste from MUG vendor. As one specific example, one of the bags was almost entirely comprised of lettuce trimmings with no contamination other than a few rubber gloves. The waste audit also made it clear that, to become a zero waste facility in the future, the national franchises of the Union must introduce different types of food containers. Several of these vendors provide to-go containers that are unable to be recycled under single stream, most notably Styrofoam and plastic bags. The Union kitchen must also consider different containers, since only one of their current materials, a #6 plastic container, is recyclable. Styrofoam from the Union kitchen and the national franchises are especially concerning, since more than a third of survey respondents thought it was recyclable. Interviews with National Franchises Although we contacted every national franchise represented in the Union’s MUG, only Wendy’s and Subway agreed to an interview, but just Wendy’s actually followed through on their correspondence. Franchises that we did not interview include Panda Express, Mrs. Field’s, Subway and Pizza Hut. Auntie Anne’s and Freshens are also in the MUG, but we were not provided with their contact information. The informational interview with Wendy’s provided us ways to more accurately address the restaurant vendors directly with our overall recommendations. Surprisingly, the Wendy’s at the MUG does not have a recycling receptacle in their kitchen. They believe a recycling system would be utilized, considering they have bulk food aluminum cans (about 15 per week) that are easy to recycle. Currently, Wendy’s only recycles cardboard. As we predicted, the franchise is not given much flexibility from their national headquarters to improve sustainability at their specific location. On a positive note, however, Wendy’s does purchase their buns from a local bakery. The remaining food comes from food distributor Sygma, located in Monroe, MI. When asked whether or not they would be interested in participating in a pre-consumer composting program, the managers showed high interest. Specifically they mentioned the large amounts of lettuce, onion, and tomato scraps they produce

Zero Waste Union

11

during food preparation. However, they were very weary about where the funding would come from, as well as whether or not they would be charged. Looking to Peer Institutions for Examples In assessing the ability of the Union to transform into a zero waste facility, our group modeled our recommendations after other U.S. universities that are comparable in student body size and currently have a zero waste mission in place. The University of California, University of Boston, and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill are a few universities among many that have proactive plans for waste diversion. Although our group looks only to achieve zero waste in one specific building, we evaluated practices that have been implemented at these universities campus-wide to assist us. These procedures include promoting recycling and waste diversion methods, composting, and holding waste audits. To meet its Zero Waste by 2020 goal, the University of California and its ten separate campuses have begun an aggressive approach to divert waste from the landfill. Throughout this process, all of the University of California campuses have a set of benchmarking goals that require a 50% waste diversion rate by 2008, 75% by 2012, and complete zero waste by 2020.2 In doing so, many of the campuses have already implemented a single stream recycling system, something that the University of Michigan already has in place. Currently, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) campus has already achieved a 60% recycling rate, far exceeding its goals.3 In order to meet these benchmarks, it has implemented recycling containers that explain exactly what materials that can be recycled to decrease confusion. In addition, UCLA increased the amount of recycling bins on campus to achieve a 1:1 ratio to trash cans. Despite the Michigan Union also being single-stream facility, its recycling rates remain around 29%. In order to increase recycling rates, the Union can increase signage that specifically states what can be recycled, along with increasing the number of recycling containers in the Union. In addition to recycling, college campuses are now implementing pre- and post-consumer composting to decrease the amount of waste that reaches the landfill. Boston University (BU) has both a pre- and post-consumer composting program in its dining halls, with an estimated 429 tons of food waste being composted each year.4 To further increase composting rates, BU dining facilities are currently working to use only compostable materials. In addition, BU is working with national franchises, such as Dunkin’ Donuts, to eliminate non-compostable and non- recyclable containers, such as polystyrene (Styrofoam) cups. The dining facilities at this university are also offering incentives for the use of reusable mugs by selling beverages at reduced prices. Because the Union’s waste is largely composed of food-related waste, it can implement a pre- and post-consumer composting system to further reduce its amount of waste going to the landfill. Also, the Union can work with its national franchises to provide more compostable or recyclable food containers and packaging. Many universities are also conducting waste audits to determine the recycling rates of the campus, as well as the composition of recyclables and compostables in their current waste streams. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has a comprehensive system where the campus’s recycling rates are monitored and tracked to show monthly and yearly recycling trends.5 In addition to tracking the recycling rates on campus, the University of California at

Zero Waste Union

12

Davis (UC Davis) completed a series of weekly waste audits on seven buildings to measure the effectiveness of the current waste diversion methods along with determining areas for improvement.6 The waste audits at UC Davis let the facility management quickly assess waste diversion weaknesses and easy solutions to remediate these shortcomings. Having a building like the Union conduct waste audits, either yearly or a series of weekly audits, allows the facility to know whether its waste diversion methods are successful and where there are areas for improvement. Recommendations The following are necessary steps that the Union must undergo in order to become a true zero waste facility. Goals are divided into short and long term components, since the scope of this project is vast and will have immediate implementation. Although many of these recommendations will undoubtedly encounter obstacles and backlash, the benefits of achieving them are immense and significant.

Short-Term Recommendations

● Retrofit all recycling containers (MUG wooden cabinets). Each container should be adapted/relabeled to single-stream accessibility and labeled accordingly. We recommend that receptacles that are currently labeled “Thank You” be changed to say either “Trash” or “Landfill.” Furthermore, recycle receptacle labels must be changed from “Paper Only” to “Recyclables” whether or not there is a symbol as well or not. Possible ideas include a single stream recycling label, the traditional M recycling symbol, or a label that simply reads “Recyclables.” The raw material needed for these alterations, acrylic, would cost approximately $120. See Figure 7 in Appendix for suggested flap designs.

● Increase signage and education.

Signage must be introduced along with retrofitted containers to avoid contamination and increase recycling rates. We recommend that the Union introduce signage that explicitly depicts what is recyclable under single-stream conditions. Moreover, the signs should employ place-specific items that allow for easy sorting among visitors. For example, a Styrofoam container from Panda Express should be clearly labeled as “waste,” while a plastic cup with a Wendy’s logo can be marked “recyclable.” Signage must also be placed at eye-level, so that visitors aren’t inconvenienced while trying to sort their waste. We also recommend that these signs be implemented as permanent features, considering the large amount of visitors and new students the Union receives each day. Moreover, a larger poster should be dedicated to describing the effort to become a zero waste facility in the future, to make students aware of the end goal of this project. Finally, the signs should be clearly understandable and promote recycling while being consistent with MUG décor. See Figures 6 and 8 in Appendix for possible samples.

● Add more recycling containers while reducing trash containers in the MUG. To promote recycling behaviors, a recycling receptacle must be present wherever there is a trash bin. This will increase recycling convenience and awareness of receptacle

Zero Waste Union

13

location. Our survey made clear that recycling containers must be placed in more convenient locations, considering that less than half of respondents knew where receptacles were located. While there is no magic number when it comes to number of bins, it is important to keep in mind the ratio of trash cans to recyclables. According to the waste audit, roughly a quarter of the waste was able to be recycled, so using a 1:4 ratio may be appropriate. However, considering that recycling rates must continue to be encouraged throughout this process, it may be a good idea to invest in more recycling bins. See Figures 1-4 in Appendix for current and suggested receptacle layouts.

● Implement recycling in national franchise kitchens. Many of the recyclable items found in the waste audit were from these businesses, including large cans of tomatoes and plastic cartons of liquid egg. Not only are these items recyclable under the newly instated single-stream program, but also their bulky form fills up trash unnecessarily. In order to divert this waste, a recycling bin must be purchased and designated to each national franchise. This will require a one-time payment, considering that bins must be purchased but pick- up fees are already included in trash collection costs. Each bin costs $4.05 and must be requested through the office of Tracy Artley. To distinguish one bin from another, some sort of label should be applied to the receptacle such as placing a sticker on the lid of the bin. In order to avoid contamination, educational trainings on what is acceptable for recycling should be given, and posters should be distributed to each franchise. Franchises must hang these posters in areas that will allow for easy referral during kitchen duties.

● Create a manual outlining Zero Waste Events and include information on website.

Including such a manual in each event that takes place in the Union will not only increase awareness of the Union’s stretch goal, but will also change practices among different groups who use the Union. This manual and other pertinent information related to the zero waste goal should also be included on the website. Potential clients will then be able to prepare better for having a zero waste event, and will have the information at an easily accessible location. Please see appendix for manual example. In addition, the website should add a zero waste specific page under their “About Us and History” tab. This page should provide information on what a zero waste facility is, why the Union is moving in that direction, and some of the findings from this project. See Figure 5 in Appendix for a suggested event manual.

● Implement pre-consumer composting.

Implement pre-consumer composting in the Union kitchen and national franchises. These establishments should look to the five dining halls currently participating in pre-consumer composting for direction. Assuming that each national franchise produces enough composting to fill one composting bin per week, adding this program will cost each vendor $847.60 per week (at $16.30/cart/pick-up). The table below provides a both a cost and waste diversion estimate based on the number of bins used per week by each national vendor. Average capacity was calculated using 2009 estimates and provided by Tracy Artley.

Zero Waste Union

14

Number of Bins/Week/Vendor

Annual Cost of Pick-Up/Vendor

Amount of Waste Diverted/Vendor

(assuming average capacity)

Total Amount of Waste Diverted

(assuming average capacity)

1 $847.60 3,380 lbs 16,900 lbs

2 $1,695.20 6,790 lbs 33,800 lbs

3 $2,542.80 10,140 lbs 50,700 lbs

Although these figures are rough estimates, the table serves as a cost and waste diversion predictor for national franchises. By paying less than $1,000 annually, each vendor could divert 3,380 lbs of compost from the landfill, assuming that each bin picked up per week was filled to average capacity. Of course, implementing a pre-consumer composting program at each of the vendors would necessitate an educational seminar in which vendors learn what can and what can’t be compostable. Educational signage must also be implemented in each vendor’s kitchen, with place-specific details to allow easy sorting among employees.

● Educate student organizations on recycling.

Several of the bags sorted at the waste audit appeared to have originated at the Student Groups floor, and were heavily comprised of recyclables. Each student group office should receive recycling bins, signage, and a quick educational visit to increase the recycling rate in this area of the Union.

● Hire a student intern or create an independent study position.

In order to implement the aforementioned suggestions and continue to move towards a zero waste facility, a student intern or independent study participant would be helpful. This student would be given the responsibility of carrying out the recommendations put forth in this study, answering to Susan and Donna throughout the semester.

Long-Term Recommendations

● Post-consumer composting. Implement a system where the Union visitors and staff separate their organic waste

into specified containers that are coupled with descriptive and effective signage. The Union may choose to look at the Ross School of Business regarding signage examples.

● Recyclable and/or compostable goods at each national franchise and the University

Club. Any food container and/or utensils sold at the union should eventually be compostable if the Union is going to be a true zero waste facility.

Zero Waste Union

15

● Waste audits every 3 years.

We recommend waste audits every three years to encourage benchmarking and track progress of the Union’s zero waste initiatives. Methodology should stay consistent in order to provide the most accurate data.

● Environmental engagement among Union community. Encouraging behaviors of waste reduction of staff and visitors will also help to

reduce the Union’s waste stream. For example, Union visitors could opt for reusable water bottles and food containers instead of disposable ones.

Barriers In order for a zero waste Union to exist, there are multiple barriers that must be overcome. First, visitor education is a major obstacle affecting recycling rates. Indeed, our survey results showed that a small minority of MUG visitors is well aware of what can be recycled under the single stream system. Implementing signage and adding recycling receptacles in the MUG will augment recycling awareness, but these recommendations take time, money, and coordination. Education and public acceptance also hampers the implementation of both recycling and pre-consumer composting in each national franchise. These employees will have to complete educational training in order to avoid compost contamination, and will subsequently have to add a new component to their food preparation routines. While this may be a large initial barrier, after talking with East Quad dining hall employees, it seems that with time, this practice will be seen as normal, rather than cumbersome and unusual. Also, in order for composting to be implemented, it would have to be approved and implemented within each different restaurant chain separately from the others. However, the University Club on the first floor of the Union represents a place that may accomplish pre-consumer composting with less effort, since it is University owned and operated.

Exiting infrastructure also serves as an obstacle to pre-consumer and post-consumer composting. There is minimal space on the Union’s loading docks for composting bins, which proves difficult for storage purposes. Moreover, the pre-consumer compost pick-up schedule poses an issue, considering that it occurs three times per week. Most national franchises, however, will be unable to produce this amount of compostable material on a weekly basis, meaning that bins will have to be stored somewhere. This prolonged pick-up might lead to odor issues, as well as pick-up scheduling complications.

Another barrier is related to the containers, cups, and utensils that are provided by the franchise restaurants. Even if recycling rates are improved, it is difficult to attain a zero waste status because most of the materials the vendors use (containers, cups, etc.) are not recyclable. Therefore, even if everyone recycled everything without fail, trash would still be generated in the MUG. Primarily, Panda Express uses predominantly Styrofoam to distribute their food, which is not recyclable in the current single stream system. Also, the University Club provides three to-go containers, two of which are non-recyclable. One of these disposable containers is #6 Styrofoam,

Zero Waste Union

16

which is especially confusing for sorters because #6 plastics are acceptable under single stream, but Styrofoam, no matter what number, is not.

Lessons Learned

Our group has thrived on experiencing the challenges that accompany changing a large institution such as the University of Michigan. In this process, we have learned many lessons. Primarily, we learned that funding is paramount to spurring change at the University. For example, a monetary sponsor was required in order to make our waste audit possible. Luckily, our course professor and his affiliate organization, the Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute, had the resources to provide funding, but this still serves as an example of how funding can hinder changes towards more sustainable practices. From our survey, we also learned how hard it is to educate visitors on recycling. Although we are very much aware of what is acceptable under the new single stream system, the majority of students, staff, and MUG visitors have not received the same education and are therefore unaware. Engaging these visitors is much more difficult than previously expected, although signage is a key component. Working with the Union administration has also helped us understand how many stakeholders are involved in such a large project. Not only does this procedure include students and visitors of the MUG, but it also incorporates Union administration, custodial staff, student organizations, companies who use the Union for events, and even wedding parties. The wide audience range poses an interesting challenge, as whatever changes are implemented must be effective across a variety of demographics and for multiple uses. Acknowledgements First and foremost, we would like to thank Mike Shriberg and Laura Matson for providing encouragement and guidance throughout this project, as well as for participating in the waste audit. We’d also like to acknowledge Susan Pile and Donna Maples for their collaboration and input. Another thank you goes to the rest of our waste audit volunteers, including Anna Siobhan Clements, Patton Doyle, Dingsheng Li, Mary Sell, and Katie Harris. A special thank you to Brian Talbot, who not only assisted in the waste audit, but took valuable photos of the event as well. In addition, we thank the Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute for sponsoring our waste audit and making it possible, as well as the Student Sustainability Initiative for advertising the event in their newsletter. Thank you to Allison Herbert for letting us borrow her scale for the waste audit. We also thank Sandy Pearsall and Andy Maiville of Wendy’s for granting our request for an interview. Furthermore, we want to thank Sandra Lowry for giving us a tour of East Quad’s pre-consumer composting program and the entire East Quad kitchen staff for kindly answering our inquiries. Thank you to Bob Yecke, who originally proposed this project idea, and to Carol Anderson, whose activities assisted us with group cohesion. Lastly, we’d like to extend a special thank you Tracy Artley for providing consistent support and answering all of our questions.

Zero Waste Union

17

Conclusion The Union has a long road ahead until it becomes a true zero waste facility. However, there are several steps that can be easily implemented in the short-term, primarily increasing the amount of recycling receptacles, implementing educational signage, and introducing pre-consumer composting at the Union kitchen and the national franchises. As one of the most iconic establishments on campus, the University Union has a great opportunity to actively engage students in sustainability and to serve as a role model to other buildings on campus through the continuation of this initiative.

Zero Waste Union

18

Literature Cited 1. City Council Worksesson. City of Ann Arbor Single Stream Recycling Upgrade Business Case. Presentation. Print. 2. Waste and Recycling at UC. University of California. Web 16 Nov. 2010 <http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/sustainability/recycle.html>. 3. UCLA Sustainability: Recycling and Waste Web. 16 Nov. 2010 <http://www.sustain.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=51>. 4. Food. Boston University Sustainability. Web 17 Nov. 2010 <http://www.bu.edu/sustainability/what-were-doing/food/>. 5. Alves, Amy, and BJ Tipton. "Office of Waste Reduction and Recycling: Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Trend Report." UNC Facilities Services Home. University of North Carolina, 14 Oct. 2010. Web. 18 Oct. 2010. <http://www.fac.unc.edu/wastereduction/>. 6. Yu, Qiu Ping, and Emmanuel Nava. R4 Recycling Program July 2009 Waste Audits. Rep. University of California, Davis. 7. Jolliet, Olivier. Rep. Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute, 1 June 2010. Web. 18 Oct. 2010.

Zero Waste Union

19

Appendix Figure 1 - Current State of MUG Receptacles

Zero Waste Union

20

Figure 2 - Current State of MUG Receptacles

Zero Waste Union

21

Figure 3 - Suggested MUG Receptacle Layout

Zero Waste Union

22

Figure 4 – Suggested MUG Receptacle Layout

Zero Waste Union

23

Figure 5 – Zero Waste Event Manual

Zero Waste Union

24

Fiu

Figure 6 – Educational Poster

Zero Waste Union

25

Figure 7 – Suggested Receptacle Flaps

Zero Waste Union

26

Figure 8 – Suggested Single Stream Poster

Zero Waste Union

27

Figure 9 – Photographic Evidence of Inefficient Flap Signage

Figures 10, 11, 12 – Photos from the Waste Audit

Zero Waste Union

28